I will buy this lens..but it will be at least $2000. I suspect more with the outrageous increase coming out of Canon Japan on camera bodies and lenses. I would expect $2400 or higher.

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Well...if they are charging $2300 for the 24-70mm.... I KNOW this is going to cost more. Undoubtedly. I am still trying to recover for the $3500 I just laid out for the MkIII. Thank God for eBay and a lot of willing buyers for my 5DII and accessories. I just hope that if Canon produces a 14-24 that it is exceptional as the NIkon appears to be. Canon has had a LOT of weakness in the WA zoom area in the past for full-frame zooms. I have my fingers crossed on this one. And I have more than a year to put the pennies in the piggie bank!!!!!

I thought the nikonians had been paying about $2500 for their 14-24 anyway. I'd personally expect at least that from canon, and if its actually turns out to be better, it may well be something around $3000.

Still half exciting though.

Logged

In the end, only the image matters... Not what equipment you used to get there.

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Of course they can get away with it, and they will! Just look at the 5D3 vs D800 pricetag. Canon did get away with that just fine, even though the D800 is arguably a better camera with a sensor that blows the 5D3 halfway across the galaxy.

As long as canonites continue to bend over, Canon will get away with their crazy pricing.

Jettatore

Why so much bad talk about the 16-35 2.8L II. It is not a perfect lens, but it rarely let's me down.

Because for landscapes that you may wish to print large, it's not even in the same league as the Nikon 14-24. It's orders of magnitude worse. I've tested 4 Nikon 14-24 lenses all of which with their collective copy variability still, at f/5.6, outperform any of the 16-35 & 17-40 lenses I've tested at f/11 (in edge-to-edge sharpness).

If edge-to-edge sharpness is not important to you, then, by all means, the Nikon 14-24 is a waste of money, weight & protruding front element

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

The big issue with the 14-24 is flare. With the lens protruding out so far, it reaches out and grabs flare that you would not normally expect. This makes it rather specalized, and requires some careful setup and planning. The results can be worth it, but its not a lens to just walk out and start shooting, you really have to watch out for the flare. You often will not see it thru the viewfinder, only when you start editing the images and find it where it was not expected.

For all insensitive porpoises, the TS-E 24mm doesn't have any lens flare. Even straight into the Sun. (Well, okay, there's one veeeery thin faint ring. But no loss of contrast.)

I think it's safe to assume that the same engineers who figured out how to get rid of flare on the 24 will be the ones designing the 12-24, and I'd expect them to improve on their already-unbelievable performance with the 24.

And, no. This lens will not be cheap. It'll be more expensive than either the 24-70 or the 70-200, probably by 10% - 15%.

Personally, I don't expect to buy this lens. Generally, when I want wide, I want movements...I'd get the TS-E 17mm to supplement my TS-E 24mm before I got a 12-24, and I'd only do that if I felt the 24 wasn't wide enough. Considering that 24 still feels like the perfect perspective for my wide-angle stuff, I don't expect that to happen for a long time (though, if I started doing architecture or real estate or the like, I could see that changing).

I've got the 16-35, but I don't use it as much as I thought I might. For me, it's best suited for comedic stuff, like closeup shots of Shriner cars in a parade. That sort of thing is fun, but one only needs so much fun of that type....

And 12mm? I know there're people who put something that insanely wide to good use, but I'm not one of 'em.

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.

Here's the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 (left) vs. the Canon 16-35 at f/11 (right); first, we'll look at the left side of the frame, middle of the image vertically (i.e. this is not a corner):

As you can see, f/2.8 on the Nikon lens is significantly sharper than f/11 on the Canon lens, on both sides of the frame. Meaning, this isn't even a decentering issue.

Now, I could show you the f/2.8 comparisons, but that would just be mean

As for the the-digital-picture's findings, I find it completely consistent with my findings. If you look at the 'mid-frame' portions, the Canon lens doesn't sharpen up until f/8. The Nikon lens is already sharp at mid-frame at f/2.8 (in fact, at f/2.8 it's sharper mid-frame than the 16-35 ever gets, at f/8 or f/11), with CA disappearing by f/4 to f/5.6.

In the extreme corners, the Nikon 14-24 at f/5.6 is sharper than the Canon 16-35 ever gets. In fact, it's so sharp at f/5.6 in the corner that by f/8 you're already seeing diffraction-induced softness.

Perhaps one route to take with filters might to be have a petal hood but allow it to be unscrewable with the option to replace it with a filter holder with a normal filter thread. Something like this but smaller because it wouldnt need to go over the petal hood...

I hope Canon doesn't read this - or it will be $3000+ or as much as they can possibly get away with, looking at the huge amount of photogs who have been waiting this for years.

Of course they can get away with it, and they will! Just look at the 5D3 vs D800 pricetag. Canon did get away with that just fine, even though the D800 is arguably a better camera with a sensor that blows the 5D3 halfway across the galaxy.As long as canonites continue to bend over, Canon will get away with their crazy pricing.

If this were a copy variation thing (which I doubt, given all other comparisons on the 'net, e.g.: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html), then one should wonder how this unit made it past QC. I've also tested a number of 17-40s, used to own one as well, & saw similar performance, which is why I got rid of them all.

I've tested 4 different Nikon 14-24s; so now let's look at the the biggest difference between copies of the 14-24 I've seen (in terms of decentering issues). Again, please view images at 100% by following the link.

I'm not doubting you are trying to put you on the spot, but do you have any comparison samples handy to illustrate this? Also, from your 1st hand experience, would you comment on the ISO Chart Tests from The Digital Picture that was posted earlier in the thread and how that compares to your direct findings?

No problem. Please view the following images at 100% by following the links. All images are taken on my Canon 5D Mark III. The Nikon lens was mounted via a Novoflex adapter.

Here's the Nikon 14-24 at f/2.8 (left) vs. the Canon 16-35 at f/11 (right); first, we'll look at the left side of the frame, middle of the image vertically (i.e. this is not a corner):

As you can see, f/2.8 on the Nikon lens is significantly sharper than f/11 on the Canon lens, on both sides of the frame. Meaning, this isn't even a decentering issue.

Now, I could show you the f/2.8 comparisons, but that would just be mean

As for the the-digital-picture's findings, I find it completely consistent with my findings. If you look at the 'mid-frame' portions, the Canon lens doesn't sharpen up until f/8. The Nikon lens is already sharp at mid-frame at f/2.8 (in fact, at f/2.8 it's sharper mid-frame than the 16-35 ever gets, at f/8 or f/11), with CA disappearing by f/4 to f/5.6.

In the extreme corners, the Nikon 14-24 at f/5.6 is sharper than the Canon 16-35 ever gets. In fact, it's so sharp at f/5.6 in the corner that by f/8 you're already seeing diffraction-induced softness.

This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.

Omg - this is brutal and lets the 16-35L look like a p&s lens. And considering the price of the 16-35L2, it gets even worse. If I need an uwa now, I guess I'm better off with one of the efs lenses (Canon 10-22, Tamron 11-16)...